EXPLORING EFFECTIVE SYSTEMS RESPONSES TO HOMELESSNESS

HIGH-LEVEL GOVERNANCE CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
METHODS
The lead researcher worked with MHCHS lead staff
to identify potential participants based on their
involvement in the plan to end homelessness and
its implementation. Participants were regarded as
knowledgeable on Medicine Hat’s work in this area
and selected to provide a wide array of perspectives
as people who work in frontline agencies, community
leaders, public system partners and government
representatives. Key stakeholder interviews of
approximately one hour were conducted with 18
participants from October 2014 to December 2014. A
further 10 potential participants were approached, who
were unable or unwilling to participate in the project.
Detailed notes were taken during the interviews,
which consisted of semi-structured questions that
had been provided to respondents ahead of time. The
table below summarizes the roles of the interviewees to
further contextualize findings.
The data collected was analyzed thematically to deduce
recurring patterns. Relying on a qualitative research
approach based on a grounded theory, analysis of the
interviews was undertaken throughout the data collection
process rather than as a one-time effort. This enabled an
iterative process whereby the interviews could be guided
to probe newly emerging themes as the case study work
unfolded. Quantitative data available from existing data
sources including previous analyses of system performance
in the 2014 update of the Medicine Hat plan to end
homelessness, the 2015 point-in-time homeless count
and available community-level data from the National
Household Survey and Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation (CMHC) were also synthesized to shed
additional light on the local context.
This case study has a few methodological limitations
that are worth noting, including a relatively short
time frame for data collection which hindered the
participation of potential stakeholders during a busy
period in the late fall of 2014. Some stakeholders may
inadvertently not have been included in this process.
The researcher and lead MHCHS staff relied on their
knowledge in the homelessness field to inform the
interview questions included, though this may have
missed other relevant areas. As the case study relied
on MHCHS staff’s recommendations of participants,
this will influence reporting bias and thus potentially
skew the findings. Despite these limitations, this is an
initial attempt to capture learnings at a single point
in time. Future research can build on this analysis
complementing it with broader stakeholder selection
locally and potentially examining the case study in
relation to other communities from a comparative lens.
TABLE 1
Stakeholder Interviewees
INTERVIEWEE ROLE
NUMBER OF INTERVIEWEES
Academic Researcher 1
Community Volunteer 1
Consultant 1
Management -level Staff in Funding Organization 5
Management-level Staff in Homeless-serving Organization 4
Municipal Official 2
Private Sector Representative 1
Public System Representative 2
Frontline Service Provider in Homeless-serving Organization 1
Total 18
499